Skip to main content

Can you summarize Niall Ferguson's views in Chapter 14 of The Pity of War?

At the beginning of this chapter, which is the concluding chapter in this book, is a shocking fact about the war's consequences that has since been backed up by historians (and is not usually taught in schools).  The shocking fact is that Britain (and not Germany) was thrown into economic disarray by the end of World War I.  "The paradox was--and still is--that Germany, the loser, was worse off."  Ferguson backs up this paradox with many facts supporting his idea before leading into the thought that, without this irony, Germany may not have been able to gain the momentum for World War II.  


Germany lost more due to a "blow to their prestige" (such as in the loss of their colonies) than due to actual "economic worth."  The reparations Germany was asked to pay, says Ferguson, was unreasonable; therefore, loans were in order.  This put Germany in a better position than the reader might expect.  In fact, "tax reform was deliberately botched out of the desire to avoid reparations."  As a result, reparations were truly avoided by Germany.


Ferguson eventually suggests that the burden of debt was actually more for the British than it was for the Germans.  Ferguson provides a very damning graph on page 416 of the reparations Germany was expected to pay vs. the reparations it eventually paid.  The results are striking.  It becomes obvious to the reader that Germany would recover.  Eventually, inflation in Germany actually "stimulated investment" and allowed postwar Germany to stabilize if not to prosper.  Eventually, Germany simply found themselves ready to "start working out how to pay for the next war."  


Ferguson's views in this chapter, of course, contrast with the usual idea that Germany was completely devastated (both economically, politically, and socially) after World War I.  

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

A man has a garden measuring 84 meters by 56 meters. He divides it into the minimum number of square plots. What is the length of the square plots?

We wish to divide this man's garden into the minimum number of square plots possible. A square has all four sides with the same length.Our garden is a rectangle, so the answer is clearly not 1 square plot. If we choose the wrong length for our squares, we may end up with missing holes or we may not be able to fit our squares inside the garden. So we have 84 meters in one direction and 56 meters in the other direction. When we start dividing the garden in square plots, we are "filling" those lengths in their respective directions. At each direction, there must be an integer number of squares (otherwise, we get holes or we leave the garden), so that all the square plots fill up the garden nicely. Thus, our job here is to find the greatest common divisor of 84 and 56. For this, we prime factor both of them: `56 = 2*2*2*7` `84 = 2*2*3*7` We can see that the prime factors and multiplicities in common are `2*2*7 = 28` . This is the desired length of the square plots. If you wi...
Post a Comment
Read more

What warning does Chuchundra issue to Rikki?

Chuchundra, the sniveling, fearful muskrat who creeps around walls because he is too terrified to go into the center of a room, meets Rikki in the middle of the night. He insults Rikki by begging him not to kill him. He then insults him by suggesting that Nag might mistake Chuchundra for Rikki. He says, "Those who kill snakes get killed by snakes."  He issues this warning to Rikki not to help keep Rikki safe but as a way of explaining why Rikki's presence gives him, Chuchundra, more reason to fear.  Chuchundra starts to tell Rikki what Chua the rat told him--but breaks it off when he realizes he might be overheard by Nag. He says, "Nag is everywhere, Rikki-Tikki." Rikki threatens to bite Chuchundra to get him to talk. Even then, Chuchundra won't overtly reveal any information. But he does say, "Can't you hear, Rikki-Tikki?" This is enough of a clue for the clever mongoose. He listens carefully and can just make out the "faintest scratch-s...
Post a Comment
Read more